Other services with unenforceable charges???

monkey_alan

trisontana wrote: »

Clampers don't operate in supermarket or retail-park car parks, so I can't see the logic of your argument.

But there are thousands of P&D car parks across the land, and many of those use clamping, particularly in the city centres. So surely there will be a mass increase in the penalty ticketing approach if the clamping ban goes ahead, and this discussion is only going to get more pertinent.

I started this thread really to try and see if there was a clear consumer blueprint for unenforceable charges in general. To me it seems logical that P&D fees on private car parks shouldn't be paid at all (I was originally inspired by Coupon-mad's suggestion to that effect, although I can now see it wasn't quite meant in that context) as the payment of these fees could be seen as an acceptance of the other pre-advised charges, or at the very least, the acceptance of some kind of contract.

To pay the parking fee, which may be extortionate in itself and not a reflection of the PPC's losses, but to then try and argue the other charges are extortionate penalties, surely leaves the consumer with a weaker argument than if they simply didn't pay any fee in the first place.

Complete denial of any contract still seems like the best blueprint to me.

trisontana

I think that you will find that the vast majority of P&D car-parks are operated by councils, very few by private companies. They prefer to look after free car-parks in supermarkets and retail parks.

Coupon-mad

monkey_alan wrote: »

But there are thousands of P&D car parks across the land, and many of those use clamping, particularly in the city centres. So surely there will be a mass increase in the penalty ticketing approach if the clamping ban goes ahead, and this discussion is only going to get more pertinent.

I started this thread really to try and see if there was a clear consumer blueprint for unenforceable charges in general. To me it seems logical that P&D fees on private car parks shouldn't be paid at all (I was originally inspired by Coupon-mad's suggestion to that effect, although I can now see it wasn't quite meant in that context) as the payment of these fees could be seen as an acceptance of the other pre-advised charges, or at the very least, the acceptance of some kind of contract.

To pay the parking fee, which may be extortionate in itself and not a reflection of the PPC's losses, but to then try and argue the other charges are extortionate penalties, surely leaves the consumer with a weaker argument than if they simply didn't pay any fee in the first place.

Complete denial of any contract still seems like the best blueprint to me.

Yes, I see what you mean.

But if the P&D signage was very clear then, in theory, I wonder how one would convince a judge that you had not seen it at all and had assumed the car park was free, assuming you were unlucky enough to find a PPC who wanted to chance their arm in Court? The judge might be more on the side of a motorist who had paid the couple of quid fee in good faith but argued that the 'parking charge' was nothing more than a penalty and/or the signage was unclear, etc.

Like Trisontana, in my area there are free retail private car parks and then there are Council P&D car parks, mainly. I can think of some private multi-story car parks around here but I have never (and wouldn't if I could avoid it) park in one that would charge me anything for shopping on site.

I wonder if more P&D car parks may spring up but cannot see that happening with Supermarkets, unless you can get a refund at the till like some already do.